n.b. This topic was previously under "Feminism" as "Sexist Advertising" but is now intended to more generally cover idiocy and falseness in advertising.

I just read this article and watched the video mentioned. I sent an email to Samsung telling them I would be boycotting their products in the future. Let's start sticking it to companies that engage in such outrageous misandry.

Let's also start a list of other such companies. Indeed, perhaps we could start a list of companies that support liberalism, MC, PC, Islam and all the rest of it. Likewise, let's start a list of those that don't (or are at least neutral).

I found the advert offensive but no more so than this one, which I posted before:

You see this kind of thing preceding films whenever you go to the cinema now, so I hardly ever go. I assume it is the same in TV advertising. I don't watch the TV any more, partly because I couldn't stomach such rubbish any more. To think that when I left school I nearly went into advertising, but I quickly realised how corrupt it is. I would have been asked to churn out rubbish like this. I thought it would be creative and well paid but actually I just had to lie and exaggerate and everywhere were these PR women running everything.

Since they now dominate both education and media women are in a very powerful position to corrupt young minds, and they're doing it. What a dysfunctional society they are creating (one only needs to look at young women - even aesthetically lucky ones - who usually look miserable because of the rubbish ideological trash feminism is selling them. They are told they must beat men in all fields but they can't, and deep down they don't even want to).

The Samsung advert was probably done simply because the feminists could get away with it - they delight in ridiculing and belittling men. It is particularly insulting when you consider the likely male to female ratio in the engineers who actually designed and built that very device! But I suppose the advert also made strategic business sense for Samsung:

Samsung are making very good phones etc. I don't even know what that thing in the advert was, so in that sense (the most important sense) it was actually a complete failure, but let's say they applied this attitude to selling a phone. Men are generally very into technology and will investigate every detail of a device. Everybody knows that. Women are nowhere near as inclined to do this. My point is that since Samsung make the best phones (pretty much, obviously some will disagree) then men will calculate from an understanding of the technology that that's the right phone for them to buy - sadly, even despite the stupid advert.

Many women "drunk on feminism" (as Elliott once put it so well), on the other hand, will see a woman lording it over a man and be moved emotionally (flattered and indulged without justification, yet again), and they will assume the phone is okay because other people have it. Obviously this is a generalisation (I am going to stop using this disclaimer soon) but that'll be the thinking on the part of Samsung, I suppose. So Samsung bosses indulge the feminists in their misandry (which would be utterly condemned and unacceptable if reversed).

Samsung know not a lot of men will boycott the product, but I certainly would because I think every time I looked at the phone (or whatever it is) I would think of the smug face of that woman.

There's nothing wrong per se with the stated goals of this organization (to help girls in Third World countries), but there is an implied sexism:

Because she is a girl, she’s more likely to suffer from malnutrition, be forced into an early marriage, be subjected to violence, be sold into the sex trade, or become infected with HIV. Because she is a girl, she faces discrimination in her own home. Because she is a girl, she’ll have limited access to a doctor or even a primary education (if she’s able to go to school at all). But we’re here to change all that. Because being a girl should always be a positive, empowering experience.

The implication is that boys growing up in the Third World don't share these problems and don't deserve the same help or consideration. I would venture to say that some of the worst situations of inequality between boys and girls are probably found in Muslim countries, but I doubt that this organization would ever acknowledge such a fact.

Mr Calvin Broadus Jr. is a rapper a.k.a. "Snoop Doggy Dogg" who was arrested for murder while recording his early work "Doggystyle". He has also been banned from British Airways and from Britain as a result of his criminal behaviour. One "song" I remember by Mr Broadus in association with "Dr" Dre (there is also a rapper who arrogantly calls himself "Professor" Green) is this one, in which the two fantasise about murdering a policeman.

Of course, Britain has lifted the ban on Mr Broadus now, and he is often paid by large corporations here such as Orange and Moneysupermarket for endorsement. Isn't he, after all, just the kind of person who should be a model for young people? The Guardian goes weak at the knees at his "mercenary" tactics too. The advertising of this Moneysupermarket is particularly annoying, in my opinion, shamelessly pandering as it does to the very lowest social common denominator. The advert featuring Mr Broadus is also damaging in that - as usual - it shows the white professional male (who is holding up society) as a nerd, loser type, while the black man (a criminal in this case) is wise and self assured.

Today is Mothering Sunday, when particular respect could indeed be paid to mothers who have been good, though such respect should of course be paid every day, without the need for an industry around it. But in my inbox was a typical idiotic advert:

This was for the British market so the ethnicity selected is to be expected, however mothers of course do not teach children (of either sex) "everything they know". The father has a role too. Indeed daughters without the guiding influence of a father often go off the rails.

The advert itself concedes that the mother has not taught this daughter everything she knows, of course, since the daughter is about to teach her how to use Skype. The nose ring is not looking too nice in the photo either!

As we have mentioned elsewhere, I think M&S are making some mistakes and betraying their core market with this campaign. Not only do they feature Doreen Lawrence but also one Rita Ora.

Could it be that M&S strategists have simply given up on the demographics and the vulgarisation of the UK? Perhaps it is no good trying to appeal to cultivated people any more because there are simply not enough of them to make a viable business model. Or perhaps what they are doing is good (trying to get those who admire low-culture people to wear tasteful clothing) - if probably futile!